Lack of Carbs makes people Fat

[fzu]

Except all of these people will stay lean throughout their life, wheras most people that are only sustained by bad diet ontop of stimulants will inevitably catch up with themself as they grow older- as proven by the video I posted, Mark Sissan, and the low carb lot have blown out completely, wheras the high carb people 40/50/60 are all lean. 

[kirk paolinelli]

Where is the proof other than anecdotal evidence.

Belief= confidence in the truth or existence of something not  immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

From your posts, I guessing you should have titled this thread:

"I believe lack of carbs makes people fat."

That way we would have known you weren't interested in any facts.

[fzu]

Right back at you, please leave my thread.

[Drew.]

 

Right back at you, please leave my thread.

 

 

Hey man,

I feel pretty anxious about saying this. I expect to be attacked instead of met with curiosity on this topic. I want to say that I'm not criticizing you. I'm not trying to call you out. I am only sharing my experience of this discussion.

You state that a high carb diet has been "proven to be the best caloric breakdown." Maybe that's true. Maybe it's not. But you didn't offer any proof or sources for your claim. That's fine. That's totally fine. But you ask Kirk42 to leave your thread because he does the exact same thing that you have. This is a total violation of UPB. Your standards are higher for others than they are yourself. I felt angry when you said that this topic was your thread. It's not. If anyone can claim ownership to the boards, it's Stef. He runs it. He pays for it. The next people who have a share is the people who donate. Kirk42 is a Philosopher King, he donates a significant amount of money to the boards. You don't donate. The boards are more his than yours, and even that fails in comparison to Stef's claim. Evidence has been proven to show that sugar can be converted to fat and that Americans who are fat often have high carb diets. These arguments do place your original claim that carbohydrates don't make people fat into question. They don't necessarily disprove it, but there is a a degree in which you could be wrong.

In another topic, you mention that you have grandiose and narcisstic tendancies. I think that you are experiencing them here. I could be wrong, but my narcissism alarms are ringing. In Kirk42's first post, he said that you were wrong. You completely ignored my post. I asked about the ratio, and you didn't provide me with an answer. I asked what the ideal diet would be like. You didn't answer that. Why did you engage with Kirk42 and not me? What happens if you're wrong? What happens if low carb diets are just as healthy as high carb diets? What happens if the all-powerful and all-knowing god that you want to be is wrong and fallible?

I'm only bringing this up because I see this as an opportunity for you to grow, and it's also an opportunity for me to grow as well. If you want to be great, here is your chance.

[fzu]

 

 

Right back at you, please leave my thread.

 

 

Hey man,

I feel pretty anxious about saying this. I expect to be attacked instead of met with curiosity on this topic. I want to say that I'm not criticizing you. I'm not trying to call you out. I am only sharing my experience of this discussion.

You state that a high carb diet has been "proven to be the best caloric breakdown." Maybe that's true. Maybe it's not. But you didn't offer any proof or sources for your claim. That's fine. That's totally fine. But you ask Kirk42 to leave your thread because he does the exact same thing that you have. This is a total violation of UPB. Your standards are higher for others than they are yourself. I felt angry when you said that this topic was your thread. It's not. If anyone can claim ownership to the boards, it's Stef. He runs it. He pays for it. The next people who have a share is the people who donate. Kirk42 is a Philosopher King, he donates a significant amount of money to the boards. You don't donate. The boards are more his than yours, and even that fails in comparison to Stef's claim. Evidence has been proven to show that sugar can be converted to fat and that Americans who are fat often have high carb diets. These arguments do place your original claim that carbohydrates don't make people fat into question. They don't necessarily disprove it, but there is a a degree in which you could be wrong.

In another topic, you mention that you have grandiose and narcisstic tendancies. I think that you are experiencing them here. I could be wrong, but my narcissism alarms are ringing. In Kirk42's first post, he said that you were wrong. You completely ignored my post. I asked about the ratio, and you didn't provide me with an answer. I asked what the ideal diet would be like. You didn't answer that. Why did you engage with Kirk42 and not me? What happens if you're wrong? What happens if low carb diets are just as healthy as high carb diets? What happens if the all-powerful and all-knowing god that you want to be is wrong and fallible?

I'm only bringing this up because I see this as an opportunity for you to grow, and it's also an opportunity for me to grow as well. If you want to be great, here is your chance.

 

Well, nature itself is my source- there is no calorie restriction in nature, no animal limits calories- and if they do, they are eating the wrong thing. Our closest ancestors infact had a diet comprising 98% of Ruffage/Fruit, and 2% insects- low fat/low protein. Plus there is the simple fact, that there is zero low carb pro athletes- that should say a lot.

Sure, and the people giving these anti-sugar lectures are all overweight, so just logical thinking- says it's wrong.

What is high carb anyway? the everyday person considers donuts, pizza, burgers to be high carb foods. I'm talking about fruits, grain and vegetables, which have around 90% of calories coming from carbs. What Joe Shmo considers 'high carb' is such foods:

http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/chocolate-coated-or-frosted-doughnuts?portionid=39032&portionamount=1.000

http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/pizza-cheese

This is not 'high carb', this is high fat. The carbs are innocent, the carbs on that donut are scared to death.

I'm not a scientist, or researcher? you know why? Because I like things easy. If I want to grow a watermelon, I'm not going to put those seeds in concrete, I'm going to put them in soil- I like things easy- not over complicated and reliant upon memorising nonsense. I just look at the basic reality, and make an easy conclusion based on results- so if you are expecting me to be a graph hound, seek someone else.

[Heath Long]

So fat people cannot have knowledge? This individual might very well be more healthy than you. While obesity does not indicate good health, carrying a few extra lbs can be quite healthy, as a recent study has illustrated. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1555137

i think your argument is an example of an ad homenim fallacy.

i agree that a doughnut is not equal to rice or fruit.

if you take in more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It is pretty simple. A few years back, a college professor ate nothing but snack cakes for a lengthy period of time, and lost weight. Not because carbs are so good, but because he only ate 1400 or so calories per day in twinkles. You would say that calorie restrictions will result in short term loss. Fair enough. But a sedentary lifestyle with unlimited calories will result in weight gain. A calorie is a unit of measure. You expend and consume energy which we measure in calories. What happens to that energy if it is consumed and not expended? Conservation of energy says that it must be converted for storage, unless of course, you are saying we excrete it? Like Randy Marsh after a nice meal of PF Changs perhaps?

[kirk paolinelli]

 

Conservation of energy says that it must be converted for storage, unless of course, you are saying we excrete it? Like Randy Marsh after a nice meal of PF Changs perhaps?

 

So the real question then is how many calories are in a Couric?

[Drew.]

 

 

 

Right back at you, please leave my thread.

 

 

Hey man,

I feel pretty anxious about saying this. I expect to be attacked instead of met with curiosity on this topic. I want to say that I'm not criticizing you. I'm not trying to call you out. I am only sharing my experience of this discussion.

You state that a high carb diet has been "proven to be the best caloric breakdown." Maybe that's true. Maybe it's not. But you didn't offer any proof or sources for your claim. That's fine. That's totally fine. But you ask Kirk42 to leave your thread because he does the exact same thing that you have. This is a total violation of UPB. Your standards are higher for others than they are yourself. I felt angry when you said that this topic was your thread. It's not. If anyone can claim ownership to the boards, it's Stef. He runs it. He pays for it. The next people who have a share is the people who donate. Kirk42 is a Philosopher King, he donates a significant amount of money to the boards. You don't donate. The boards are more his than yours, and even that fails in comparison to Stef's claim. Evidence has been proven to show that sugar can be converted to fat and that Americans who are fat often have high carb diets. These arguments do place your original claim that carbohydrates don't make people fat into question. They don't necessarily disprove it, but there is a a degree in which you could be wrong.

In another topic, you mention that you have grandiose and narcisstic tendancies. I think that you are experiencing them here. I could be wrong, but my narcissism alarms are ringing. In Kirk42's first post, he said that you were wrong. You completely ignored my post. I asked about the ratio, and you didn't provide me with an answer. I asked what the ideal diet would be like. You didn't answer that. Why did you engage with Kirk42 and not me? What happens if you're wrong? What happens if low carb diets are just as healthy as high carb diets? What happens if the all-powerful and all-knowing god that you want to be is wrong and fallible?

I'm only bringing this up because I see this as an opportunity for you to grow, and it's also an opportunity for me to grow as well. If you want to be great, here is your chance.

 

Well, nature itself is my source- there is no calorie restriction in nature, no animal limits calories- and if they do, they are eating the wrong thing. Our closest ancestors infact had a diet comprising 98% of Ruffage/Fruit, and 2% insects- low fat/low protein. Plus there is the simple fact, that there is zero low carb pro athletes- that should say a lot.

Sure, and the people giving these anti-sugar lectures are all overweight, so just logical thinking- says it's wrong.

What is high carb anyway? the everyday person considers donuts, pizza, burgers to be high carb foods. I'm talking about fruits, grain and vegetables, which have around 90% of calories coming from carbs. What Joe Shmo considers 'high carb' is such foods:

http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/chocolate-coated-or-frosted-doughnuts?portionid=39032&portionamount=1.000

http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/pizza-cheese

This is not 'high carb', this is high fat. The carbs are innocent, the carbs on that donut are scared to death.

I'm not a scientist, or researcher? you know why? Because I like things easy. If I want to grow a watermelon, I'm not going to put those seeds in concrete, I'm going to put them in soil- I like things easy- not over complicated and reliant upon memorising nonsense. I just look at the basic reality, and make an easy conclusion based on results- so if you are expecting me to be a graph hound, seek someone else.

 

I'm not going to intellectualize with you at all. I simply refuse to engage with you on the level. I want to know what it means to you to be wrong. I want to know what is happening for you on an emotional level.

What is the cost for being wrong?

[TenguNation]

 

 there is not a single, zero, nada pro athlete that eats low carbs, nobody has yet named one in all of my conversations.

Brock Lesnar - Former UFC Heavyweight champion.

Maintained a low carb diet.

 

Frank Mir - Another former UFC Heavyweight champion.

Tried a vegan diet for a year, lost two of his four fights that year.  Returned to a higher protein diet for "better athletic outcomes".

 

If your looking for more examples, the Heavyweight divisions of most combat sports will have many athletes that have found success with a low-carb high-protein diet.

[SimonF]

 

No, that is not true. You need energy to begin with to have sustainable exercise in the first place. EVERYONE should eat unlimited carbohydrate calories, as it is not stored and fat, and it benefits every cell in your body.

 

Although I see much merit in the 80/10/10 way it is simply wrong to suggest that unlimited carb intake will not induce weight gain.

The human body is metabolically adapted to store fructose as fat probably something that evolved during fruiting seasons in millenia gone by to give a store of energy out of the fruting season. Have a look at some of the videos on YouTube about this such as the one below.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89IJg-4BZyg]

[Jamie]

I think this isue is being highly over simplified. It is about a lot more than fat/protien/carbs. Processesed shugars have been shown to add extra fat, when I have seen and heard many who sware they can't keep fat on no matter what they do on a raw food diet.

If your talking about eating a prodominatly raw food diet (which I have some experiance with)  you should consider all the bio-nutrients you are getting that you would otherwise be void of as well as the high amounts of fiber you are getting. if your body uses the calories you take in to actualy fix and run your body properly (which it need the nutrents to do) then that will not only burn more calories but give you more energy for other activities. Also, uncooked, high fiber foods lock in more calories, causing them to pass through your system instead of alowing absorbtion into the blood stream, so the amount you are eating is not the same as you are actualy runing on.

Also, I can garuntee that you are getting protien in your diet if you are eating fruit, and if you aren't eating any fatty fruit (like bannana's and Avacado) you should be happy to know that the body can manufacture it's own as you would probably be dead or at least suffering memory loss without that fact. The membrain of every cell in your body are made of fat and brain cells are more fatty than most cells.

[Stephen C]

I don't think this thread has anything to do with diet. I think it is about being fed lies. 

[AnCapandThankful]

How are there this many posts and not a single mention of Gary Taubes or Good Calories, Bad Calories? 

You are completely wrong about weight gain. The science behind it isn't even that complex, but I'd begin looking into insulin resistance. You're young, your body hasn't begun to build up a resistance. The calories in, calories out hypothesis is silly at best.

You're right that high caliber athletes need high carbs, because your body needs glucose for intense movements, however, for nonaerobic exercise this isn't needed. If you're not crossfitting everyday, it's unnecessary and can be harmful. 10 percent of fat is enough? Show me one evolutionary model that proves that to be the case. Show me one hunter gatherer society that consumes ten percent of fat. 

Also, pointing out someone who is a bit overweight and saying: look, he's fat, don't take advice from him, is a bad argument. How fat would he be if you put him on a high carb diet? 

There is evidence to link high carb intake to cancer, alzheimers, diabetes, heart disease, and weight gain.

Grant it, the carbs you seem to be eating are healthier than bread, legumes, and processed junk, but consuming over 150 grams a day will most likely lead to weight gain. 

[SimonF]

 

How are there this many posts and not a single mention of Gary Taubes or Good Calories, Bad Calories? 

...

 

Since you ask about Gary Taubes, here's the first of a 16 part expose on his discredited dissertation...

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImWYirF0es]

[SimonF]

 

You are completely wrong about weight gain. The science behind it isn't even that complex, but I'd begin looking into insulin resistance. You're young, your body hasn't begun to build up a resistance. The calories in, calories out hypothesis is silly at best.

...

 

Insulin resitance is modulated by fat intake:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42LfH8veEU]

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/5/728

Effects of Age and Body Fat Insulin Resistance in Healthy Men

1. Guenther Boden, MD, 
   
2. Xinhua Chen, MD, 
   
3. Richard A DeSantis, PHD, MD and 
   
4. Zebulon Kendrick, PHD
   

RESULTS Body fat (kg fat mass or in percentage of body weight), rates of insulin-stimulated leg blood flow, glucose uptake, oxidation, and storage were all similar in elderly and younger men. Body fat (in percentage of body weight) of both elderly and younger men correlated closely and negatively with glucose uptake (r = −0.73, P < 0.01), glucose oxidation (r = −0.67, P < 0.05), and with glucose storage (r = −0.65, P < 0.05). In contrast, age did not correlate significantly with any parameter of glucose metabolism.

CONCLUSIONS Our data suggested that insulin sensitivity in men until around 60–70 yr of age appears to be determined more by body fat than by age.

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

How are there this many posts and not a single mention of Gary Taubes or Good Calories, Bad Calories? 

...

 

Since you ask about Gary Taubes, here's the first of a 16 part expose on his discredited dissertation...

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImWYirF0es]

 

 

Have you read the book?

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

You are completely wrong about weight gain. The science behind it isn't even that complex, but I'd begin looking into insulin resistance. You're young, your body hasn't begun to build up a resistance. The calories in, calories out hypothesis is silly at best.

...

 

Insulin resitance is modulated by fat intake:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42LfH8veEU]

 

 

I've been eating a high fat diet for two years, blood glucose levels are around 59--not fasted.

That is, literally, the first time I've seen something like that ever been discussed, and I study this stuff constantly.

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

You are completely wrong about weight gain. The science behind it isn't even that complex, but I'd begin looking into insulin resistance. You're young, your body hasn't begun to build up a resistance. The calories in, calories out hypothesis is silly at best.

...

 

Insulin resitance is modulated by fat intake:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42LfH8veEU]

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/5/728

 

Effects of Age and Body Fat Insulin Resistance in Healthy Men

1. Guenther Boden, MD, 
   
2. Xinhua Chen, MD, 
   
3. Richard A DeSantis, PHD, MD and 
   
4. Zebulon Kendrick, PHD
   

 

 

RESULTS Body fat (kg fat mass or in percentage of body weight), rates of insulin-stimulated leg blood flow, glucose uptake, oxidation, and storage were all similar in elderly and younger men. Body fat (in percentage of body weight) of both elderly and younger men correlated closely and negatively with glucose uptake (r = −0.73, P < 0.01), glucose oxidation (r = −0.67, P < 0.05), and with glucose storage (r = −0.65, P < 0.05). In contrast, age did not correlate significantly with any parameter of glucose metabolism.

CONCLUSIONS Our data suggested that insulin sensitivity in men until around 60–70 yr of age appears to be determined more by body fat than by age.

 

 

 

Sorry, didn't see the last part here. You do realize what you sent me has nothing to do wtih fat intake? I thas to do with body fat percentage, which is what I agree with. However, what increases body fat percentage--insulin, it's a cyclic thing. I agree with you.

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

You are completely wrong about weight gain. The science behind it isn't even that complex, but I'd begin looking into insulin resistance. You're young, your body hasn't begun to build up a resistance. The calories in, calories out hypothesis is silly at best.

...

 

Insulin resitance is modulated by fat intake:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42LfH8veEU]

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/5/728

 

Effects of Age and Body Fat Insulin Resistance in Healthy Men

1. Guenther Boden, MD, 
   
2. Xinhua Chen, MD, 
   
3. Richard A DeSantis, PHD, MD and 
   
4. Zebulon Kendrick, PHD
   

 

 

RESULTS Body fat (kg fat mass or in percentage of body weight), rates of insulin-stimulated leg blood flow, glucose uptake, oxidation, and storage were all similar in elderly and younger men. Body fat (in percentage of body weight) of both elderly and younger men correlated closely and negatively with glucose uptake (r = −0.73, P < 0.01), glucose oxidation (r = −0.67, P < 0.05), and with glucose storage (r = −0.65, P < 0.05). In contrast, age did not correlate significantly with any parameter of glucose metabolism.

CONCLUSIONS Our data suggested that insulin sensitivity in men until around 60–70 yr of age appears to be determined more by body fat than by age.

 

 

 

Last thing. This guy CARB LOADED. He wasn't simply consuming fat to make his point, he was consuming massive amounts of white flour. Which is carbing up, and that destroyed his blood levels. Not sure if you're trying to agree with me here?

[SimonF]

 

I've been eating a high fat diet for two years, blood glucose levels are around 59--not fasted.

 

That's borderline hypoglycemic, which is also not healthy:

"Research in healthy adults shows that mental efficiency declines slightly but measurably as blood glucose falls below 65 mg/dL (3.6 mM) in many people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia

So hows your cholesterol doing?

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

I've been eating a high fat diet for two years, blood glucose levels are around 59--not fasted.

 

That's borderline hypoglycemic, which is also not healthy:

"Research in healthy adults shows that mental efficiency declines slightly but measurably as blood glucose falls below 65 mg/dL (3.6 mM) in many people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia

So hows your cholesterol doing?

 

 

Admittedly, I was going for extremely low carb the week I was tested, to cut a bit more fat (think less than 10 grams per day). I would imagine it would rise some when I eat usual, which is between 50-100 grams of carbs. My point being that the nonsense in that video, was just that, nonsense--fat doesn't raise glucose levels.

Cholesterol is fine. Got checked two weeks ago. If you think those numbers mean anything, which I doubt.

According to the Framingham Heart Disease calculator, I have a virtually 0% chance of developing heart disease in the next ten years. 

[SimonF]

 

Last thing. This guy CARB LOADED. He wasn't simply consuming fat to make his point, he was consuming massive amounts of white flour. Which is carbing up, and that destroyed his blood levels. Not sure if you're trying to agree with me here?

 

Listen to the first minute of the program again. Fat causes blood cells to become sticky and aggregate as was clearly demonstrated at the start of the program. Fat forms a direct physical barrier limiting cellular sugar uptake. If he just ate the bread (no fat), he'd be fine. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and carbs you get hyperglycemic.

Your personal experience is of hypoglycemia because you don't eat the carbs your body needs to function properly. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and not enough carbs you get hypoglycemic.

The healthy thing to do is eat enough carbs and limit fat intake.

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

Last thing. This guy CARB LOADED. He wasn't simply consuming fat to make his point, he was consuming massive amounts of white flour. Which is carbing up, and that destroyed his blood levels. Not sure if you're trying to agree with me here?

 

Listen to the first minute of the program again. Fat causes blood cells to become sticky and aggregate as was clearly demonstrated at the start of the program. Fat forms a direct physical barrier limiting cellular sugar uptake. If he just ate the bread (no fat), he'd be fine. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and carbs you get hyperglycemic.

Your personal experience is of hypoglycemia because you don't eat the carbs your body needs to function properly. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and not enough carbs you get hypoglycemic.

The healthy thing to do is eat enough carbs and limit fat intake.

 

 

I agree with you that consuming high fat and high carb is extremely unhealthy, more unhealthy than eating high carb.

Limiting fat intake, however, is both wrong evolutionary and from a science persepective. If the hypoglcemia is true, then how did the Inuit not simply die off? They actively refused to eat plant material, feeling it was beneath them.

 

EDITED first sentence.

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

Last thing. This guy CARB LOADED. He wasn't simply consuming fat to make his point, he was consuming massive amounts of white flour. Which is carbing up, and that destroyed his blood levels. Not sure if you're trying to agree with me here?

 

Listen to the first minute of the program again. Fat causes blood cells to become sticky and aggregate as was clearly demonstrated at the start of the program. Fat forms a direct physical barrier limiting cellular sugar uptake. If he just ate the bread (no fat), he'd be fine. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and carbs you get hyperglycemic.

Your personal experience is of hypoglycemia because you don't eat the carbs your body needs to function properly. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and not enough carbs you get hypoglycemic.

The healthy thing to do is eat enough carbs and limit fat intake.

 

Also, I saw no ill effects at all from eating low carb. People eat low carb constantly for years and see no ill consequences of hypoglycemia. Quoting wikipedia doesn't make it so.

[SimonF]

 

Admittedly, I was going for extremely low carb the week I was tested, to cut a bit more fat (think less than 10 grams per day). I would imagine it would rise some when I eat usual, which is between 50-100 grams of carbs. My point being that the nonsense in that video, was just that, nonsense--fat doesn't raise glucose levels.

 

Sure, if you ingest virtually no carbs you can't get hyperglycemic, you get hypoglycemic instead.

 

Cholesterol is fine. Got checked two weeks ago. If you think those numbers mean anything, which I doubt.

 

Why be so evasive, just tell us your numbers.

 

According to the Framingham Heart Disease calculator, I have a virtually 0% chance of developing heart disease in the next ten years. 

 

Your chance of having a heart attack are low, perhaps you are under 50?

If you are eating a high fat diet your chances of having atherosclerosis are high. Most people eating fatty diets have detectable atheroscerotic lessions developig from their childhood.

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

Admittedly, I was going for extremely low carb the week I was tested, to cut a bit more fat (think less than 10 grams per day). I would imagine it would rise some when I eat usual, which is between 50-100 grams of carbs. My point being that the nonsense in that video, was just that, nonsense--fat doesn't raise glucose levels.

 

Sure, if you ingest virtually no carbs you can't get hyperglycemic, you get hypoglycemic instead.

 

Cholesterol is fine. Got checked two weeks ago. If you think those numbers mean anything, which I doubt.

 

Why be so evasive, just tell us your numbers.

 

According to the Framingham Heart Disease calculator, I have a virtually 0% chance of developing heart disease in the next ten years. 

 

Your chance of having a heart attack are low, perhaps you are under 50?

If you are eating a high fat diet your chances of having atherosclerosis are high. Most people eating fatty diets have detectable atheroscerotic lessions developig from their childhood.

 

 

You don't necessarily get hypoglycemic. Look at the Inuit. If i was, I certainly had no ill effects.

HDL: 50

LDL : 120

Tri: 90

Like I said, cholesterol doesn't matter nearly as much as people have said. Seventy-five percent of people simply are not affected by the fat intake in the diet and the cholesterol in the blood. 

If you could please show me one evolutionary example where people ate less than 10% of calories as fat, I'd appreciate it.

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

Admittedly, I was going for extremely low carb the week I was tested, to cut a bit more fat (think less than 10 grams per day). I would imagine it would rise some when I eat usual, which is between 50-100 grams of carbs. My point being that the nonsense in that video, was just that, nonsense--fat doesn't raise glucose levels.

 

Sure, if you ingest virtually no carbs you can't get hyperglycemic, you get hypoglycemic instead.

 

Cholesterol is fine. Got checked two weeks ago. If you think those numbers mean anything, which I doubt.

 

Why be so evasive, just tell us your numbers.

 

According to the Framingham Heart Disease calculator, I have a virtually 0% chance of developing heart disease in the next ten years. 

 

Your chance of having a heart attack are low, perhaps you are under 50?

If you are eating a high fat diet your chances of having atherosclerosis are high. Most people eating fatty diets have detectable atheroscerotic lessions developig from their childhood.

 

 

Not to mention, the brain can turn fat into glucose with very little effort. 

[AnCapandThankful]

 

 

Admittedly, I was going for extremely low carb the week I was tested, to cut a bit more fat (think less than 10 grams per day). I would imagine it would rise some when I eat usual, which is between 50-100 grams of carbs. My point being that the nonsense in that video, was just that, nonsense--fat doesn't raise glucose levels.

 

Sure, if you ingest virtually no carbs you can't get hyperglycemic, you get hypoglycemic instead.

 

Cholesterol is fine. Got checked two weeks ago. If you think those numbers mean anything, which I doubt.

 

Why be so evasive, just tell us your numbers.

 

According to the Framingham Heart Disease calculator, I have a virtually 0% chance of developing heart disease in the next ten years. 

 

Your chance of having a heart attack are low, perhaps you are under 50?

If you are eating a high fat diet your chances of having atherosclerosis are high. Most people eating fatty diets have detectable atheroscerotic lessions developig from their childhood.

 

 

Can you show me evidence that a high fat diet leads to atherosclerosis?

[Wesley]

Not all protein is bad, protein coming from animals that are grain and corn fed rather than grass fed or wild caught can be bad.

Not all fat is bad, but industrial seed oils and fats from animals not fed proper diets are compared to natural fats from olive oil or coconut oil.

Not all carbs is bad, but genetically modified wheat and high fructose corn syrup are compared to natural sugar or other relatively un-modified carbs.

 

There are primitive tribes who survive on massive amount of carbs, others who survive on massiv amounts of fat, and others who were more carniverous than animals who we consider pure carnivores. They all have better weight, choleterol, heart disease rates, cancer rates, etc, etc, etc.

It all has to do with genetic modification, then subsidies that get those genetically modified or industrial products into almost every food and feed them to our animals.

 

Saying all carbs or all fat or all protein is bad is silly. It depends on what your goals are, what your genetic history is, and what you enjoy eating.

There are measures of health besides wieght. You can get lean by not eating, or poisoning yourself, however no one would consider this to be a healthy state.

[AnCapandThankful]

 

Not all protein is bad, protein coming from animals that are grain and corn fed rather than grass fed or wild caught can be bad.

Not all fat is bad, but industrial seed oils and fats from animals not fed proper diets are compared to natural fats from olive oil or coconut oil.

Not all carbs is bad, but genetically modified wheat and high fructose corn syrup are compared to natural sugar or other relatively un-modified carbs.

 

There are primitive tribes who survive on massive amount of carbs, others who survive on massiv amounts of fat, and others who were more carniverous than animals who we consider pure carnivores. They all have better weight, choleterol, heart disease rates, cancer rates, etc, etc, etc.

It all has to do with genetic modification, then subsidies that get those genetically modified or industrial products into almost every food and feed them to our animals.

 

Saying all carbs or all fat or all protein is bad is silly. It depends on what your goals are, what your genetic history is, and what you enjoy eating.

There are measures of health besides wieght. You can get lean by not eating, or poisoning yourself, however no one would consider this to be a healthy state.

 

 

Agree almost completely with this. The Katavans eat upwards of 60% of their diet from carbs, and the Inuit at nearly 0.

I do think, however, that the total amount of carbs can be detrimental over the long term if they are abnormally high (from an evolutionary perspective). However, the Good Lord (sarcasm) didn't give us the type of food that will lead to super high levels of carbs (i.e., potatoes only contain around 40 grams of carbs for a large).

[mythness]

Eat fruits as your main source of fuel and carbohydrates. The rest of your nutritional requirements can then be obtained from certain meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables. Most fat intake should be stable and saturated; coconut oil comes to mind (not just for cooking, either.) Don't undercut your caloric requirements, or else your metabolism will slow down in response. If vegan, opt for supplementation of certain nutrients that are only available (or feasible) from animal-based food sources. Avoid or minimize intake of allergens and harmful foods, especially packaged foods. Try to incorporate some unpasteurized fermented foods, if possible, as a garnish (make it yourself or buy it from Asian / ethnic stores).

 

Everyone's happy. Everyone's happy?